mvbighead
Diamond Member
- Apr 20, 2009
- 3,793
- 1
- 81
Are you a maroon who does not have reading comprehension skills?
I'll quote what you are clearly misinterpreting...
This bill should be in great excess of the costs associated with fighting fires. So if there are 5 paid FFs (at $20 bucks and hour), 3 hours of firefighting, and equipment etc., the bill should be in excess of $500.
Don't take an overly simplistic example and try to suggest that I was of the impression that it was the end all be all of fire-fighting costs.
Also, your math skills appear to be dwindling as well. 5 guys, 3 hours a piece, at $20 an hour runs about 300 bucks total. I had suggested that the bill be in excess of 500? Note the word excess. That means more than 500. So not only did I account for some overhead, but I suggested that the bill be well in excess of the hourly rate of the firemen.
Again, I was being overly simplistic to suggest a different method of collecting. The fire dept would be the ones determining the total cost. In any case, the bill given to the people owning that home would be far in excess of $75.
As for it costing $10k to put out a fire, I'll simply say that different fires have varying degrees of expense. If it were a kitchen fire in a trailer house, I would guess it could take an hour or two tops to extinguish with a few guys. If it were a top story fire on a 4k sqft home, I would guess a lot more guys and a lot more time invested. In any case, if they did the calculations, and sent a bill, they'd at least be making good use of their time instead of standing there and watching a house burn. And again, I don't think they're wrong for doing it... I just think a sizable bill would be crude enough to get others to pay up annually.
The primary problem that leaves is collection and making it enforceable. I have no idea how one would make that work. It simply would seem to be a better alternative than letting a house burn, and almost equally as crude to the person who didn't pay up annually. To me, if a fire dept drove out there to watch the house burn, they just as well spray some water on while they're there, and send a bill after. They ought to have a law that puts a lien on their home if they don't pay up.
And while I will say that it doesn't solve the issue of others not paying annually, it simply sounds like a better plan than watching valuables burn.
In short, people should just pay the damned $75 a year. I was simply trying to play out an alternative to watching it burn. Chances are, it wouldn't work. But it would feel a lot nicer than stories we see where they watch it burn because they didn't pay.
Facebook
Twitter